The inconsistency, of course, is most notable in the recent handling of North Korea's announcement that it has a new nuclear weapons program-in another apparent uncovering, some of the technology for the nuclear program was found to be provided by Pakistan. Despite the constant rhetoric about the need to preemptively attack Iraq immediately because of its nuclear potential (according to U.S. intelligence Iraq shouldn't have nuclear weapons until 2010), North Korea, which has sold weapons to terrorist groups and rogue states in the past, can be dealt with diplomatically in the eyes of the Bush Administration.
I'm not arguing against this course of action, just its hypocrisy. Not all situations should be considered equal, and I applaud the Bush administration for not applying any "clarity" approach to the situation in North Korea (moral clarity perhaps could morph into "evil clarity," or "rebuke the nuke clarity") which would be highly destabilizing if an attack occurred, not to mention unleashing dangerous geopolitical tensions and resulting in a high death toll. But don't these concerns sound a bit like the concerns about Iraq? I am a bit dismayed at why we feel Iraq deserves to be more of a threat than North Korea, and I wouldn't be surprised if it has to do with North Korea's military strength and with our belief that if we're lucky we can "do Iraq" in 36 hours. Or, perhaps it's because Iraq has been the centerpiece of the Bush campaign to distract voters from the economic problems in the U.S. After all, the Bush camp has, for the moment, surprisingly backed off its hard-line resolution approach at the UN. Makes one wonder how important Iraq really is.
In another mixed message, the Administration has told the American public that the war against Iraq is a necessity in the war on terror. Despite several complaints from leading democrats (admittedly these are few and far between) that a focus on Iraq would take the war on terror significantly off-track, Bush has gone forward with this policy. But what seemed like mildly muddled policy at first (wasn't the war on terror supposed to focus on terrorist groups, or countries that have previously sponsored terrorists like Iran and North Korea?), now seems even more dumbfounded: It appears that Al Qaeda has not dismantled, but has reorganized in strength. Need proof? Tangible evidence? Some clarity on the situation, maybe?
The recent bombing in Bali which killed approximately 200 people could raise some eyebrows. Let's also not forget the bombings in the Philippines, the French tanker hit with a small boat of explosives and the recent hostage situation in Moscow. While none of the recent incidents have been proven to be linked to Al Qaeda, it appears pretty clear that they are the beginning of a new wave of attacks. At the same time, CIA Director George Tenet warned the public of a clear and present danger of terror attacks, not only abroad, but within the U.S. Tenet recently stated that alerts to possible terror attacks haven't been so high since pre-9/11 levels-not an encouraging sign that the war on terror is truly being addressed. And what would happen if there were to be an attack? Could America take the risk of an attack on Iraq during a time of domestic crisis? Is America prepared for war at home while fighting a war overseas?
Terrorism, by its very nature, is a terribly dangerous method of having one's voice heard and is remarkably difficult to protect against, as we've seen with the sniper in Maryland. America must take a strong stand against terrorists, but it must also understand that using a strong diplomatic voice to inform and address ideologies that could lead to terrorism may be more effective in the long run than a flailing, incoherent policy that takes two steps in one direction and then turns and runs in the other direction. After all, signs are often there. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry did warn in a Washington Post op-ed in May of 2001 that the Bush administration's position on North Korea (to back off from negotiations concerning the reduction of their nuclear weapons capacity) was a "mistake" and he suggested that there was a great "need to end Pyongyang's missile program."
America must focus its energies on real and immediate terror threats by enhancing security at ports, fighting for better gun regulation, and doing all it can to seek out Al Qaeda and its partner groups. Iraq is not excusable because of its state-status, nor is it as great a threat. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran are countries we must begin serious diplomatic conversations with in order to prevent terror-and enhance their lowly senses of democracy which are even lower than Iraq's-before it becomes a reality. The Bush Administration cannot continue to play the game of darting back and forth on policy to produce an advantageous political position, while continuing to warn that the country is at its greatest danger ever. This isn't just another issue: it's terror.